Admission that the Article 9 is in favour of the victims, yes. In this case, we are forced to believe Eurussia is trying to protect imperialist countries for their own interests. Thank you.

Eurussia doesn't believe that the victims the author is talking about are the countries seeking the aid of the WA Council, since they in fact, seek the aid of the WA Council itself, who is already bound to protect them through that intervention. And not by interfering on sovereignty issues anymore, just like in Article 9. By the way, we also thank the author for further strengthening our case in challenging the law before the Court of Justice. Your admissions are very helpful.

Spoiler:

New Tarajan wrote:The Kingdom of New Tarajan, as strong promoter of the development of International Law, and responsible actor in the World Alliance, wishes to propose to the Parliament this law, aimed to regulate interventions in foreign countries, avoiding the risks of abuses and imperialistic adventures under their mask.

INTERNATIONAL INTERVENTIONS REGULATION ACT

Authored by the Federal Aristocratic Kingdom of New Tarajan, leader of the World Alliance Royalist Party, Member of the Parliament, Member of the Council

Section I.

Art. 1

The World Alliance Government, seeking to ensure the freedom of all peoples from the plague of foreign occupation, and concerned about the possible, dangerous developments for the territorial integrity of a country following an uncontrolled international intervention, hereby adopt this law as regulatory framework for any international intervention.

Art. 2

Defines, for the purpose of this international law, an international intervention as the use of diplomatic, economic, or military means adopted by a country, a group of countries, an international organization, or any kind of political entity against another country or a group of countries, while a Council intervention is the use of any means authorized by any international law by the WA Council against or in favour of another country or a group of countries.

Art. 3

Defines, for the purposes of this law, an occupation as the effective provisional control of a certain power or political entity over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity.

Art. 4

Defines, for the purposes of this law, a puppet government as a government that is appointed by and whose affairs are directed by an outside authority, external to the country.

Section II.

Art. 5

During an international or Council intervention, all units from the voluntarily participating countries to the intervention or aiding the Council intervention shall act in full accordance with the WA Constitution, existing international laws, and the objectives of the international or Council intervention itself.It is their duty to strictly respect their mandate, accomplishing only the tasks included in it.

Art. 6

All foreign military units shall safeguard the safety of the citizens of the country they are operating in, and the integrity of their properties, whenever possible.

Art. 7

All civilian staff shall follow the highest standards of transparency, reliability and efficiency while accomplishing its task.

Art. 8

It is severely forbidden, after the conclusion of an international or Council intervention, to keep holding territories belonging, prior to the intervention, to the country where the intervention took place, or to establish a puppet government, without the official consent of the country to which the territory legitimately belongs and the authorization of the World Alliance Council, as specified below.

Art. 9

In case the country where the intervention took place voluntarily gives part of its territory to another country or political entity during or after the intervention, the Council shall authorize the procedure, upon verification of the absence of any kind of constraint or influence on the offerer.If necessary, the Council could request an opinion to the Court of Justice on the particular case.

Section III.

Art. 10

The WA Council shall have the temporary power to administer a certain state that will be declared as a failed state, which for the purpose of this law, is a state that has been incapable of carrying out its duties as a state. And a failed state shall be officially proclaimed by the WA Council, upon nominations and recommendations from the WA Secretary General and the authorized organizations present in the country to be declared as a failed state. Whereas, during the exercise of such temporary powers to administer the concerned state, the WA Council must ensure that the said state shall have a duly instituted national constitution forming a full democratic government ensuring the preservation of the fundamental rights and freedom of human beings, before being granted back its full sovereignty.

Art. 11

It is severely forbidden to the Council to devolve the administration of territories belonging to a collapsed country to third countries during the period of special administration.

Art. 12

This special administration, as described in Art. 10, shall end at the beginning of the next Map Expansion, when the administered territory shall be considered free for claims.

We continue to reiterate that with the refusal of the author to remove this unconstitutional provision of the law seeing it as a direct threat to a sovereign state's independence and constitutionally protected sovereignty, Eurussia has no choice but to vote AGAINST the proposal. As we continue to believe that the WA Council have no right to refuse or revoke or even have a say in a voluntary ceded territory being given to another sovereign state. That is a clear breach of sovereignty of a country strengthened by the author's admissions.

We are even more ready to challenge this law before the Court of Justice.

Well, I don't understand all these problems for the Article 9. There are a lot of proofs useful for clarify an exchange of land:- Private messages between the two nations- Post of the nation that cede the land

Also, if one of the nation is not volunteer, simply can ask the support of the CoJ and the International Community, asking for an intervention and, after the submission of proof to the Court, the CoJ can intervene. It's simple.

Federation of Antanares wrote:Well, I don't understand all these problems for the Article 9. There are a lot of proofs useful for clarify an exchange of land:- Private messages between the two nations- Post of the nation that cede the land

Also, if one of the nation is not volunteer, simply can ask the support of the CoJ and the International Community, asking for an intervention and, after the submission of proof to the Court, the CoJ can intervene. It's simple.

Well, I think the better is change the Article 9. You can simply write that, when happen a change of territory, if the nation where was the intervention are against the cession of the territory, can ask the support of the CoJ and the Council.

Federation of Antanares wrote:Well, I think the better is change the Article 9. You can simply write that, when happen a change of territory, if the nation where was the intervention are against the cession of the territory, can ask the support of the CoJ and the Council.

Very well, then. I ask for an official permission of the Speaker to re-write the Article 9 accordingly to the new request.

Federation of Antanares wrote:Well, I think the better is change the Article 9. You can simply write that, when happen a change of territory, if the nation where was the intervention are against the cession of the territory, can ask the support of the CoJ and the Council.

Exactly. But it's too late as the proposal is now on the voting floor.

Federation of Antanares wrote:Well, I think the better is change the Article 9. You can simply write that, when happen a change of territory, if the nation where was the intervention are against the cession of the territory, can ask the support of the CoJ and the Council.

Exactly. But it's too late as the proposal is now on the voting floor.

There's no law forbidding such a move. We'll wait for the decision of the Speaker.

Federation of Antanares wrote:Well, I think the better is change the Article 9. You can simply write that, when happen a change of territory, if the nation where was the intervention are against the cession of the territory, can ask the support of the CoJ and the Council.

Exactly. But it's too late as the proposal is now on the voting floor.

There's no law forbidding such a move. We'll wait for the decision of the Speaker.

Yeah there is none, but we can't change a proposal in the middle of a voting period.

Federation of Antanares wrote:Well, I think the better is change the Article 9. You can simply write that, when happen a change of territory, if the nation where was the intervention are against the cession of the territory, can ask the support of the CoJ and the Council.

Exactly. But it's too late as the proposal is now on the voting floor.

There's no law forbidding such a move. We'll wait for the decision of the Speaker.

Yeah there is none, but we can't change a proposal in the middle of a voting period.

Since few voters expressed already their votes, I ask to the Speaker, as I've already done, to suspend this voting period, change the Article, then immediately start a new voting period.I wish to count on your support, since I understood that also for you, due to your own admission, this law is commendable and important.

Federation of Antanares wrote:Well, I think the better is change the Article 9. You can simply write that, when happen a change of territory, if the nation where was the intervention are against the cession of the territory, can ask the support of the CoJ and the Council.

Exactly. But it's too late as the proposal is now on the voting floor.

There's no law forbidding such a move. We'll wait for the decision of the Speaker.

Yeah there is none, but we can't change a proposal in the middle of a voting period.

Since few voters expressed already their votes, I ask to the Speaker, as I've already done, to suspend this voting period, change the Article, then immediately start a new voting period.I wish to count on your support, since I understood that also for you, due to your own admission, this law is commendable and important.

Yeah but Eurussia suggests to the Speaker to suspend the voting temporarily and seek the unanimous approval of those who voted already if they all want to revise the original proposal. If that is the case, Eurussia won't oppose any revision as it will be a fair procedure for all Member States of the Parliament.

Yeah but Eurussia suggests to the Speaker to suspend the voting temporarily and seek the unanimous approval of those who voted already if they all want to revise the original proposal. If that is the case, Eurussia won't oppose any revision as it will be a fair procedure for all Member States of the Parliament.

wait i have a question for New Tarajan. Will nations still be able to send its own forces?

Yes of course!

Eurussia, your behavior is uncorrect in front of this Parliament: we are ready to sustain everything to carry this law going on, but the idea to challenge in the Court every law you don't like is unrespectful of the work of this Parliament.

Thank you. However, have you considered our suggestion? It seems that the nations' voting doesn't even care about the proposal since they are voting against it.

Very well, the nations that voted prior to the said proposal (Ireland, Kaevi, Zackalantis, Eurussia, New Tarajan, Texania) shall vote on the future of Article 9. I will begin the special voting session when the author, New Tarajan, delivers the final proposal to parliament stating what the revision entails.

Thank you. However, have you considered our suggestion? It seems that the nations' voting doesn't even care about the proposal since they are voting against it.

Very well, the nations that voted prior to the said proposal (Ireland, Kaevi, Zackalantis, Eurussia, New Tarajan, Texania) shall vote on the future of Article 9. I will begin the special voting session when the author, New Tarajan, delivers the final proposal to parliament stating what the revision entails.

Thank you.Here is the new text of Article 9 (I'll implement it in the draft once the special voting session will be concluded):

"In case a country where the intervention took place suffers from pressure or influence of any kind by another country participating or contributing to the intervention, which it believes to be against its own constitutional rights, then the country which is victim of such moves could request the intervention of the CoJ in order to render null and void the results of that pressure or influence.The CoJ, in the judgement of the case, shall be free to implement any kind of ruling it will believe to be necessary in order to uphold peace, stability and order, in the respect of the Constitution."

A new version of Article 9 within Section II of the the International Interventions Act seeks the unanimous approval of the following individuals: Ireland, Kaevi, Zackalantis, Eurussia, New Tarajan, and Texania.

This change is proposed in order to ensure the sovereign rights on every nation during times of an international intervention. Please read the following proposed version of Article 9:

"In case a country where the intervention took place suffers from pressure or influence of any kind by another country participating or contributing to the intervention, which it believes to be against its own constitutional rights, then the country which is victim of such moves could request the intervention of the CoJ in order to render null and void the results of that pressure or influence.The CoJ, in the judgement of the case, shall be free to implement any kind of ruling it will believe to be necessary in order to uphold peace, stability and order, in the respect of the Constitution."

The special voting session for Article 9 Section II of the International Interventions Act has been initiated. This period will last three days or until all of the selected nations have voted by May 12, 2014. The revision will only go forward with unanimous approval and does not reflect the whole proposed act.

Please refer to the current draft to seek a comparison and be sure to consider only Article 9 when deliberating, as this vote is not for the proposal as a whole.